Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parallels

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't think anyone is arguing for including the Book of Enoch into the canon? But the issue is what exactly were Peter and Jude trying to accomplish when referencing Enoch (and possibly other writings)?

On a side note, I am not even entirely convinced they were quoting anybody except in the one instance of 'And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied...'etc. The other quotations and allusions to the Book of Enoch, and other apocryphal Jewish works, may not be quotations at all. Those works may be quoting Peter and Jude, to be honest. Also, I am currently looking at another possible explanation for the statements that do not involve any apocryphal Jewish beliefs at all... although I must confess that the understanding I outlined in this thread is - currently, to me - the strongest case I have seen that makes the most use of the available data.

I'll be back tomorrow (today? lol) to explore this some more.

The biggest enemies to the Church at its infancy wasn't the Roman empire, but was the Judaizers, the religious Judeans, the political Judeans. Which would then use the the authority of Rome to go after the infant church. Gnosticism is really an offshoot of Kabbalah, and didn't really didn't fully get structured until the mid 2nd century. The early church didn't experience Gnosticism, but Judaic traditions, fables, and mysticism which she adopted from her stay in Babylon. Hence the Babylonian talmud is her most authoritative set of Talmuds.

The book of Enoch would of posed some issues for the fledgling church, because how Enoch contradicts the canon. Take for instance we have Enoch (father of Methuselah) telling Methuselah all about the flood. Genesis 6:11-13, we have God seeing the earth's corruption, and then because of this degradation we are told Noah was informed about a flood. Noah is the great grandson of Enoch, Enoch supposedly (according to the book of Enoch) was the one who knew about the approaching flood. Methuselah name was supposed to mean "when he dies it comes" but Methuselah actually means "man of the spear" like Cain means "possessor of the spear" Methuselah is parallel type to Cain as he was the first murderer. Methuselah name embodied everything which God would be destroying, the corruption of Cain. A carnal man who sought to kill his brother because the works from his religion were evil. There are other issues which the book of Enoch has which I would like to also discuss.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Wow. This is a lot of ground to cover.

NT writers occasionally quote from literature outside of the OT canon as we know it today. Having a line or two quoted in the NT does not justify including the entire body of literary work into the NT canon.

Paul quoted Greek philosophers, in 1 Corinthians 15:33 is Menander an Athenian dramatist who lived between 342 BC to 291 BC. In Titus 1:12 Paul takes a racial jab at Cretans with their own philosopher Epimenides living between 7th or 6th century BC, who was a poet, philosopher, supposed seer/prophet. Hence Paul refers to Epimenides of Knossos as a prophet. Not that Paul believed he was a prophet, because Paul obviously includes Epimenides n his dig against the Cretans. In Acts 17:24-29, the apostle is confronted by Epicureans and Stoics, the apostle opposes the Epicureans by using the words from a Roman Stoic Philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Paul uses Roman/Greek philosophy theory (the origin of the world by mere coincidence and of atoms) which was what the Epicureans believed, and placed himself with the “Stoics” in their doctrine of the (Divine Wisdom and Providence creating and ruling all things). Not that Paul believed in the Σοφία the goddess of wisdom, just using their beliefs as an opening to the message of Christ. Σοφία is also what the Shekinah is in Mystic Kabbalah. Which the Gnostics would adopt into their Hellenized Kabbalist Christianity.

In Galatians 5:23, the Apostle Paul uses the words of Aristotle. We see in 1 Corinthians 9:24, 1 Corinthians 13:12, 2 Corinthians 7:2, Ephesians 1:22-23, Philippians 1:21, Philippians 3:19, 2 Timothy 4:6 Paul quotes Plato's words, and incorporates Plato's phraseology into his own Epistles. In Acts 14:15, Paul and Barnabas scream out a quote from Plato in Greek to get the mob's attention. In 1 Corinthians 12:14-17, 1 Corinthians 12:25 Paul incorporates Socrates.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The biggest enemies to the Church at its infancy wasn't the Roman empire, but was the Judaizers, the religious Judeans, the political Judeans. Which would then use the the authority of Rome to go after the infant church. Gnosticism is really an offshoot of Kabbalah, and didn't really didn't fully get structured until the mid 2nd century. The early church didn't experience Gnosticism, but Judaic traditions, fables, and mysticism which she adopted from her stay in Babylon. Hence the Babylonian talmud is her most authoritative set of Talmuds.

The book of Enoch would of posed some issues for the fledgling church, because how Enoch contradicts the canon. Take for instance we have Enoch (father of Methuselah) telling Methuselah all about the flood. Genesis 6:11-13, we have God seeing the earth's corruption, and then because of this degradation we are told Noah was informed about a flood. Noah is the great grandson of Enoch, Enoch supposedly (according to the book of Enoch) was the one who knew about the approaching flood. Methuselah name was supposed to mean "when he dies it comes" but Methuselah actually means "man of the spear" like Cain means "possessor of the spear" Methuselah is parallel type to Cain as he was the first murderer. Methuselah name embodied everything which God would be destroying, the corruption of Cain. A carnal man who sought to kill his brother because the works from his religion were evil. There are other issues which the book of Enoch has which I would like to also discuss.

Yes, indeed. I am thinking there is a possibility that Peter and Jude may not have been addressing the Book of Enoch specifically, but may have been simply pointing out various things that later on have been re(mis)interpreted as being somehow related to Enochian fables. On the other hand, it is quite possible Peter and Jude, while not necessarily referring directly to the Book of Enoch, may have been referring to a milieu of Jewish myths and mysticism which later coalesced into the Book of Enoch and similar writings.

I think it has yet to be demonstrated conclusively that the Book of Enoch's quotations in Peter and Jude actually, definitively, and certainly came BEFORE Peter and Jude wrote what they wrote.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes, indeed. I am thinking there is a possibility that Peter and Jude may not have been addressing the Book of Enoch specifically, but may have been simply pointing out various things that later on have been re(mis)interpreted as being somehow related to Enochian fables. On the other hand, it is quite possible Peter and Jude, while not necessarily referring directly to the Book of Enoch, may have been referring to a milieu of Jewish myths and mysticism which later coalesced into the Book of Enoch and similar writings.

I think it has yet to be demonstrated conclusively that the Book of Enoch's quotations in Peter and Jude actually, definitively, and certainly came BEFORE Peter and Jude wrote what they wrote.

I understand all that, but still we may not have the actual documents which Jude and Peter quoted from.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I understand all that, but still we may not have the actual documents which Jude and Peter quoted from.

I do however think this plays a part in it all:

Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

What is fascinating to me is that 1st century Judaism was not monolithic. There were calendar disputes about when the Feasts were to be kept, or even what kind of calendar was to be used (some held to a solar calendar, represented by the Book of Jubilees). The Qumran sect denied the validity of the Temple priesthood. I discovered from FF Bruce's New Testament History that there was a competing Jewish Temple and priesthood in Egypt in those days, claiming legitimacy by geneology and denying the Jerusalem priesthood any legitimacy because of the Herodian appointments (begun during the Maccabean period, I think it was, under the Seleucids?).

Galatians and Colossians reveal it wasn't just plain old Pharisaism Paul and the churches had to deal with, but a weird cultic new agey type of syncretic Jewish-gnostic-pagan-occultic smorgasborg of false doctrines, false teachers, etc rampant within 'Judaism'.

Apparently, nothing has really changed much in 2000 years...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I do however think this plays a part in it all:

Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

What is fascinating to me is that 1st century Judaism was not monolithic. There were calendar disputes about when the Feasts were to be kept, or even what kind of calendar was to be used (some held to a solar calendar, represented by the Book of Jubilees). The Qumran sect denied the validity of the Temple priesthood. I discovered from FF Bruce's New Testament History that there was a competing Jewish Temple and priesthood in Egypt in those days, claiming legitimacy by geneology and denying the Jerusalem priesthood any legitimacy because of the Herodian appointments (begun during the Maccabean period, I think it was, under the Seleucids?).

The temple of Onias wasn't ever an active temple used by any Diaspora Judeans or Israelis. It isn't recorded as such by any other ancient historian other than Josephus. Josephus is where F.F. Bruce got his information on this wanna-be temple in Alexandria. The temple of Onias is described by Josephus a few times in Antiquities a few times in some detail, but each time Josephus describes the Onias temple differently. Josephus in Antiquities 13:72, claims the temple of Onias was the same but smaller, not as elaborate. Josephus also tells us in Antiquities 13:72, that he didn't want to go over the dimensions again because he already explained them in his seventh book of the Wars of the Jew. But when we go check The War of the Jews, Book VII. we read that it wasn't like the temple in Jerusalem but was more like a tower, decorated with gifts. Maybe because there were two different writers (or more) to Josephus' records? but anyway, Josephus also records that the temple and Onias was a flop. Onias believed that he was some sort of prophesied messianic figure, so he built an area of worship. Yet, it seemed not to catch on with the Judeans in Judah, or the Diaspora Judeans. they understood that no where else on earth could a temple be built. But, I have my own issues with Josephus which would need a thread all by itself.

The War of the Jews Book VII.

3. So Ptolemy complied with his proposals; and gave him a place one hundred and eighty furlongs distant from Memphis. (19) That Nomos was called the Nomos of Heliopolis. Where Onias built a fortress; and a temple, not like to that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower. He built it of large stones, to the height of sixty cubits.27 He made the structure of the altar in imitation of that in our own country, and in like manner adorned with gifts: excepting the make of the candlestick. For he did not make a candlestick; but had a [single] lamp hammered out of a piece of gold; which illuminated the place with its rays, and which he hung by a chain of gold. But the intire temple was encompassed with a wall of burnt brick, though it had gates of stone. The King also gave him a large country for a revenue in money; that both the priests might have a plentiful provision made for them; and that God might have great abundance of what things were necessary for his worship. Yet did not Onias do this out of a sober disposition.28 But he had a mind to contend with the Jews at Jerusalem; and could not forget the indignation he had for being banished thence. Accordingly he thought, that by building this temple he should draw away a great number from them to himself. There had been also a certain ancient prediction made by [a prophet] whose name was Isaiah, about six hundred years before, that this temple should be built by a man that was a Jew in Egypt. And this is the history of the building of that temple.
4. And now Lupus, the governor of Alexandria, upon the receipt of Cæsar’s letter, came to the temple, and carried out of it some of the donations dedicated thereto, and shut up the temple itself. And as Lupus died a little afterward [about A.D. 75], Paulinus succeeded him. This man left none of those donations there: and threatened the priests severely, if they did not bring them all out. Nor did he permit any who were desirous of worshipping God there, so much as to come near the whole sacred place. But when he had shut up the gates, he made it intirely inaccessible: insomuch that there remained no longer the least footsteps of any divine worship that had been in that place. Now the duration of the time from the building of this temple till it was shut up again was three hundred and forty-three years.29

Originally Posted by Esaias

Galatians and Colossians reveal it wasn't just plain old Pharisaism Paul and the churches had to deal with, but a weird cultic new agey type of syncretic Jewish-gnostic-pagan-occultic smorgasborg of false doctrines, false teachers, etc rampant within 'Judaism'.

Apparently, nothing has really changed much in 2000 years...

You have nailed it!

[votivesoul]

Much of 1 Enoch is attested in fragments from the Qumran community, which existed well before 2 Peter and Jude were written. Does that mean the exact pieces quoted or alluded to are from then? Who can say?

My Cambridge Companion to the Bible claims Enoch was written and assembled over the course of approximately 200 years (From 250 BC to 50 AD). If this is accurate, then I think we can at least be certain that 1 Enoch existed before 2 Peter and Jude, especially the portion quoted in Jude, which is from the Book of the Watchers, which is dated to around 200 -150 BC.

Additionally, it seems pretty certain that more than just 2 Peter and Jude allude to or make reference to 1 Enoch. For example, the Messianic concept of the Son of Man, which Jesus used of Himself, finds reference in 1 Enoch (46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29).

Revelation 20:3 perhaps as well, in that it clearly indicates the cause of various deceptions extant among the various nations of the world is the Devil/Satan. This of course leads one back to the Enochian idea of the source of evil in the world being of demonic origin.

[votivesoul]

One other quick note:

The story of Michael and the devil arguing over Moses' body is most likely from a non-canonical story found in the Assumption of Moses, now lost, but extant in the days of Origen, who claimed the reference in Jude was from it (it certainly isn't in the Canon of Holy Scripture!).

In fact, the Assumption of Moses is believed to have Jewish roots, and can easily be incorporated into the same category as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and etc. Some scholars believe it was written in the 1st century, making it somewhat contemporaneous with 2 Peter and certainly predating Jude, which quotes from it.

This raises the question: Would the author of Jude really quote from a non-canonical source like the Assumption of Moses, to affirm the validity of the circumstances of Michael refusing to rebuke Satan as proof that he was really addressing false teachers who were, based on the just quoted Book of Enoch, actually blaspheming angels?

It doesn't make any sense. Jude wouldn't refer to one non-canonical source in a bad light to use it against those of whom he wrote, only to use another non-canonical source in a good light to prove his point that those against whom he wrote were wrong for using the same non-canonical source (i.e. Enoch) as justification for their doctrine of their belief in fallen angels, as Esaias has been asserting.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

One other quick note:

The story of Michael and the devil arguing over Moses' body is most likely from a non-canonical story found in the Assumption of Moses, now lost, but extant in the days of Origen, who claimed the reference in Jude was from it (it certainly isn't in the Canon of Holy Scripture!).

In fact, the Assumption of Moses is believed to have Jewish roots, and can easily be incorporated into the same category as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and etc. Some scholars believe it was written in the 1st century, making it somewhat contemporaneous with 2 Peter and certainly predating Jude, which quotes from it.

This raises the question: Would the author of Jude really quote from a non-canonical source like the Assumption of Moses, to affirm the validity of the circumstances of Michael refusing to rebuke Satan as proof that he was really addressing false teachers who were, based on the just quoted Book of Enoch, actually blaspheming angels?

It doesn't make any sense. Jude wouldn't refer to one non-canonical source in a bad light to use it against those of whom he wrote, only to use another non-canonical source in a good light to prove his point that those against whom he wrote were wrong for using the same non-canonical source (i.e. Enoch) as justification for their doctrine of their belief in fallen angels, as Esaias has been asserting.

Did you happen to read my post on Paul using Gentile philosophers and seers to convey the Gospel to His Gentile readers? Paul isn't giving them the thumbs up, but using them because his readers would understand how Paul was using the quotes. They were uninspired but Paul uses them, jut not validating them as Biblical sources. The same with Peter and Jude, the quote from Pseudepigrapha documents. Jesus also would use the doctrines of a certain sect He was dealing with to drive home a point. Jesus speaks about maiming yourself if a certain body part was offensive enough to lead you into sin. Jesus didn't believe that in the after life John the Baptist was walking around without his head, but used the doctrine of the Pharisees of how they would make sure every body part was intact at the burial to ensure they would be in one piece in the after life. The same with Peter and Jude. the Assumption of Moses was probably written in the first century A.D. as it may have been originally written in Latin. One incomplete manuscript is dated to the 6th century A.D.. it is an incomplete manuscript discovered by a Catholic priest, Antonio Ceriani. But consider the title, the Assumption of Moses, this in itself is a clear contradiction of Deuteronomy 34:6 which says that Moses was clearly buried in Moab, whether or not anyone was able to find the grave is not the point. But that the writer tells us that Moses was buried, and didn't ascend into heaven.

[Michael The Disciple]

Anyway, Mike the Disciple brought up hell as being the grave, I then asked him what he thought about hell in 2 Peter 2:4. Mike then threw it back on me saying he was limited in its meaning concerning hell, so I explained my thoughts on the word τάρταρον found in 2 Peter 2:4.

Its odd that instead of commenting on Pauls plain statement that the SAINTS will have victory over death at the RESURRECTION you flew into all of these things about what the Greeks believed.

Do you have no better argument against what Paul taught the Corinthians?

Let us look at it again so the reader may know the CONTEXT of what I was referring to.


51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed--
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" 1 Cor 15:51-55

Paul was teaching SAINTS about the resurrection. He said THEY would at that time become immortal. He finishes his teaching on the subject by saying death would be swallowed up in victory.

"Oh death where is thy sting? Oh HADES where is thy victory?" Verse 55.

Was Paul implying that the SAINTS had been held captive somehow in this dreadful underworld place that was ruled over by Greek gods?

Or rather was he implying that the SAINTS had been in Hades....the Greek counterpart of the Hebrew SHEOL....the grave?

Evidently THIS was Pauls meaning. The SAINTS had been dead, asleep in Hades/Sheol attested by the entire chapter 1 Cor 15. That was his whole purpose was to show them the "good news" of the resurrection of the dead.

It is taught to us by Paul that UNTIL THE RESURRECTION death and Hades has the victory over the SAINTS.

So it becomes apparent this whole idea that Hades was this great underworld civilization ruled and populated by the Greek gods is in error.

At death do SAINTS go to Hades?

We know for sure by Pauls teaching that HADES HAS THE VICTORY OVER THEM.....UNTIL THE RESURRECTION.

And my original point in all this which has now become an entirely new thread was that PAUL MENTIONS "HADES/HELL" only one time. The only time he does mention it is saying that SAINTS are in it UNTIL THE RESURRECTION.